Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Evaluations of classifiers (AI or human or agents) often assume a batch setting in which every agent produces labels on every example in a test set, which can be expensive or impractical in many contexts. This motivates online policies that adaptively select agents to query as examples arrive and update policies as outcomes are observed. We study the problem of selecting, in an online stream, the agent that best balances (i) predictive performance and (ii) subgroup fairness of a sensitive attribute, and that allows for delayed observations of true class labels. We formulate this as a Bayesian multi-armed bandit problem using Thompson Sampling, explicitly balancing accuracy and fairness. We conduct empirical evaluations on real-world datasets spanning problems involving tabular classifiers, large language models, and human labelers, demonstrating substantial reductions in regret relative to baselines. Our theoretical contributions include guarantees on the performance of the selected agent that incorporate both the accuracy and fairness aspects of the problem.